I was wondering whether 3d_armor_character.b3d was licensed under a Creative Commons license so i could use it in my own mod?
3d_armor's license file says "Special credit to Jordach and MirceaKitsune for providing the default 3d character model", which seems to imply that 3d_armor_character.b3d was based on minetest_game's character.b3d model (which is CC BY-SA 3.0), but which (if any) license 3d_armor_character.b3d itself is released under isn't specified by the license file.
Could you maybe add specifying information, if possible?
Also i'm a bit confused as to why Jordach is credited with providing the default 3d character model, given that player_api's license file only credits them with making the default character texture (and not the model), which seems like there might've been a mistake in one of both license files.
If it's CC BY-SA 3.0, then it's ShareAlike and thus all subsequent iterations of character.b3d have to be licensed under that license.
It would be worth it to ask MirceaKitsune and Jordach anyways
About your last sentence, Jordach did share a lot of renders and 3d stuff way way back, but in regards to the player model, I believe the original was by MirceaKitsune under WTFPL and later on relicensed to CC BY-SA 3.0 for compatibility with MTG, and the textures (plaid green shirt) were made by Jordach and later reased as "the same as Minetest Game"
[...] the original was by MirceaKitsune under WTFPL and later on relicensed to CC BY-SA 3.0
WTFPL is a non-retractable license, though, which means that the WTFPL license would still apply to (the original version of) character.b3d, alongside the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, in a form of dual-licensing. This means that 3d_armor_character.b3d, despite being based on a CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed model, could be licensed under any license the creators chose, due to that still applying WTFPL license (that is assuming 3d_armor_character.b3d is actually based on that initial version of character.b3d and not on a version that was released after the relicensing happened).
If it's CC BY-SA 3.0, then it's ShareAlike and thus all subsequent iterations of character.b3d have to be licensed under that license.
You're correct in saying that derivates of CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work have to be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 as well. But to my understanding that means that the creators of the derivative have to actively license it under this license, for example via an included license file, and not that it is automatically licensed under the same license by virtue of existing. Meaning that if someone creates a derivate of a CC BY-SA licensed work and fails to include an appropriate license notice with their derivate, then (A) they aren't in compliance with the original work's license, and (B) if I created a derivate of the derivate then I wouldn't be in compliance with the derivate's license either, since there is none.
Furthermore, the creators of a derivate of a CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work could have an express written (non necessarily publically available) permission from the author of the original work to create a derivative of said work without having to license it under CC BY-SA 3.0 as well (a so-called "exclusive license"), which would exempt them of the obligation of licensing their derivative under CC BY-SA 3.0 as well. Which might sound like a very unlikely scenario in this case, but it is yet another reason why derivates of CC BY-SA licensed works should always be distributed with an explicit license file.
Now for actual sources: [...]
Thanks a lot; it seems that I confused player_api's license file with its readme file.
All of the above said, I am not a lawyer and none of the above constitutes legal advice. Also I don't mean to accuse anyone of illegal conduct and especially not of maliciously illegal conduct or malicious conduct in general. The above reply is merely meant to further explain why I think it would be a good idea to add explicit license information regarding 3d_armor_character.b3d to the project's license file.
WTFPL is a non-retractable license, though, which means that the WTFPL license would still apply to (the original version of) character.b3d
The relicense happened in the early birth of the model, back in 2011 IIRC, for compatibility with Minetest Game, I only included it as a fun fact, since for all practical purposes character.b3d is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and pretty much always has been
I also believe WTFPL gives the original author agency to just relicense their own work and Do What the Fuck They Want
You're correct in saying that derivates of CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work have to be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 as well. But to my understanding...
Yes this you must relicense derivative work of stuff licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 under the same license, and actively license it that way, that's what the license means by Share Alike and BY (Attribution), if you were to not include a license, or a disclaimer with attribution in case of distribution, you would be at fault and not compliant with the original license
Glad I was of help, some of it was from memory since and some of it was from the actual sources, this was like +10 years ago so I may have missed some stuff
Hi,
I was wondering whether 3d_armor_character.b3d was licensed under a Creative Commons license so i could use it in my own mod?
3d_armor's license file says "Special credit to Jordach and MirceaKitsune for providing the default 3d character model", which seems to imply that 3d_armor_character.b3d was based on minetest_game's character.b3d model (which is CC BY-SA 3.0), but which (if any) license 3d_armor_character.b3d itself is released under isn't specified by the license file.
Could you maybe add specifying information, if possible?
Also i'm a bit confused as to why Jordach is credited with providing the default 3d character model, given that player_api's license file only credits them with making the default character texture (and not the model), which seems like there might've been a mistake in one of both license files.
If it's CC BY-SA 3.0, then it's ShareAlike and thus all subsequent iterations of character.b3d have to be licensed under that license. It would be worth it to ask MirceaKitsune and Jordach anyways
About your last sentence, Jordach did share a lot of renders and 3d stuff way way back, but in regards to the player model, I believe the original was by MirceaKitsune under WTFPL and later on relicensed to CC BY-SA 3.0 for compatibility with MTG, and the textures (plaid green shirt) were made by Jordach and later reased as "the same as Minetest Game"
Now for actual sources: MTG's player_api LICENSE file: Licenses of media (textures, models and sounds)
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Copyright (C) 2011 celeron55, Perttu Ahola celeron55@gmail.com
Copyright (C) 2012 MirceaKitsune
Copyright (C) 2012 Jordach
(and many others)
MTG's player_api README file: Authors of media (textures, models and sounds)
Original model by MirceaKitsune (CC BY-SA 3.0).
Various alterations and fixes by kilbith, sofar, xunto, Rogier-5, TeTpaAka, Desour, stujones11, An0n3m0us (CC BY-SA 3.0):
character.b3d
character.blend
Jordach (CC BY-SA 3.0): character.png
celeron55, Perttu Ahola (CC BY-SA 3.0): player.png player_back.png
WTFPL is a non-retractable license, though, which means that the WTFPL license would still apply to (the original version of) character.b3d, alongside the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, in a form of dual-licensing. This means that 3d_armor_character.b3d, despite being based on a CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed model, could be licensed under any license the creators chose, due to that still applying WTFPL license (that is assuming 3d_armor_character.b3d is actually based on that initial version of character.b3d and not on a version that was released after the relicensing happened).
You're correct in saying that derivates of CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work have to be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 as well. But to my understanding that means that the creators of the derivative have to actively license it under this license, for example via an included license file, and not that it is automatically licensed under the same license by virtue of existing. Meaning that if someone creates a derivate of a CC BY-SA licensed work and fails to include an appropriate license notice with their derivate, then (A) they aren't in compliance with the original work's license, and (B) if I created a derivate of the derivate then I wouldn't be in compliance with the derivate's license either, since there is none.
(1/2)
Furthermore, the creators of a derivate of a CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work could have an express written (non necessarily publically available) permission from the author of the original work to create a derivative of said work without having to license it under CC BY-SA 3.0 as well (a so-called "exclusive license"), which would exempt them of the obligation of licensing their derivative under CC BY-SA 3.0 as well. Which might sound like a very unlikely scenario in this case, but it is yet another reason why derivates of CC BY-SA licensed works should always be distributed with an explicit license file.
Thanks a lot; it seems that I confused player_api's license file with its readme file.
All of the above said, I am not a lawyer and none of the above constitutes legal advice. Also I don't mean to accuse anyone of illegal conduct and especially not of maliciously illegal conduct or malicious conduct in general. The above reply is merely meant to further explain why I think it would be a good idea to add explicit license information regarding 3d_armor_character.b3d to the project's license file.
(2/2)
The relicense happened in the early birth of the model, back in 2011 IIRC, for compatibility with Minetest Game, I only included it as a fun fact, since for all practical purposes
character.b3dis licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and pretty much always has been I also believe WTFPL gives the original author agency to just relicense their own work and Do What the Fuck They WantYes this you must relicense derivative work of stuff licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 under the same license, and actively license it that way, that's what the license means by Share Alike and BY (Attribution), if you were to not include a license, or a disclaimer with attribution in case of distribution, you would be at fault and not compliant with the original license
Glad I was of help, some of it was from memory since and some of it was from the actual sources, this was like +10 years ago so I may have missed some stuff